Comparative analysis of two instances of crisis, reform, and new ethical doctrine in the Canadian Armed Forces from the perspective of military professionalism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) are currently in the midst of a crisis stemming from sexual misconduct within the service. Multiple external inquires have arrived at the conclusion that the solution to this problem is found in culture change within the Canadian military, and energetic reforms have been begun to that end. This is not the first time in recent memory that a scandal has rocked the CAF; a similar crisis surrounding unethical behaviour of service members resulted from the torture and murder of teenager Shidane Arone by members of the Canadian Airborne Regiment in 1993 in Somalia. The Somalia scandal also led to multiple external inquiries and a host of recommendations which embarked the CAF on an ambitious series of reforms. This thesis compares the two cases from analytical perspectives grounded in military professionalism and civil-military relations, investigating the capstone ethical doctrine that was issued in response to both crises. Although significant media and academic attention has been paid to the current sexual misconduct crisis in the CAF, to date there has been no substantive comparison made between the two cases from the perspectives identified above. This research finds that the newly released CAF ethos, unlike that which resulted from the Somalia scandal, excessively civilianizes the CAF by promulgating a set of values too far isolated from the unique requirements of the profession of arms, leaving CAF members ill-prepared for the harsh demands of military service. The thesis concludes with two measures to address the overcorrection.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.040 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".